Judgment

GANGULY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2 On 1.11.2006, at about 7.15 p.m., the appellant was proceeding on a motorcycle (No. KA-04-X-4576) as a pillion rider on T.C. Palya Miand Road, near Raghawendranagar, when a lorry (No. KA-22-A-6772) came from behind at a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle. The left wheel of the lorry ran over the right leg of the appellant, due to which he sustained grievous injuries. The right leg of the appellant had to be amputated as a result of the accident.

3. The appellant filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs.15 lacs as compensation. At the time of the accident, the appellant was aged 20 years and claimed to be earning Rs.6000/- per month as salary as a building centering worker.

4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) held that in motor accidents cases, strict proof of rash and negligence need not be established as was required in criminal cases, and accordingly concluded that it was clearly established that the appellant sustained injuries as a result of the accident. The appellant had sustained fracture to both bones of lower 1/3 tibia and fibula, and the right leg below knee was amputated. Thus, the MACT awarded Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering. Due to the accident, the appellant was treated as both an in-patient and out-patient, and considering the nature of injuries, MACT awarded Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of income during treatment period. MACT also awarded Rs.5,000/- for medical expenses to the appellant even though no medical bills or prescriptions were produced. MACT assessed disability of the whole body at 20%, and took monthly salary to be Rs.3,500/- and hence assessed loss of future income at Rs.1,51,200/- (Rs.3500 X 12 X 18 X 20/100). MACT also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects and Rs.10,000/- toward frustration, unhappiness and discomfort, Rs.10,000/-towards transport and conveyance and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, Rs.5000/-towards attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards food and nourishment. Accordingly, total compensation payable to the appellant amounted to Rs.2,81,200/-with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. It was payable jointly and severally by the owner and Insurance Company respectively. However, in view of the insurance policy only the Insurance Company was liable to pay the entire compensation.

5. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the compensation awarded by the MACT as follows:- Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- for loss of income during period of treatment, Rs.5,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.3,78,000/-(Rs.3500 X 12 X 18 X 50%) for loss of earning capacity and loss of future earnings, Rs.75,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, including loss of marital prospects, Rs.10,000/- for conveyance charges, Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards food and nourishment. Thus, total compensation was enhanced to Rs.5,48,000/- with 6% interest p.a. payable from date of the claim petition till realization.

6. Being still aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal for further enhancement of compensation. Having gone through the material on record and after hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that the compensation amount deserves to be enhanced.

7. We note that before the MACT, the appellant contended that he was earning a monthly salary of Rs.6000/- as a centering worker. He produced a salary certificate to that effect. Further, his employer also stated that the appellant was working under him as a building centering worker for the last two years and was drawing a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. The appellant was also getting boarding and lodging in the house of his employer. However, from the cross-examination of his employer, it does not appear that the appellant was earning Rs.6,000/-per month. We accept th